insurance dispute

sheaoc

My partner was making a right turn on an A road and a on coming car had crashed in the rear left axle causing the the car to turn 120 degrees and the rear left wheel to come off the car.
She had almost completed her turn.
There was nothing restricting his view to stop but that would be debatable. For an axle to fail would require a high impact hit which makes me to believe he was speeding. I also took photos of his tyres they show lack of thread and can see the wire within the tyre i also ran an mot check and his car had no road tax.  

My partner has been badly injured and insurance is saying she is liable for she made right turn. I refuse to accept liability for he had hit the  rear left hand side of the vehicle. 

The damage done to my car is a write off due to the damage caused. 
Any legal advice would be greatly welcomed.

lopsyfa

Most likely it will go down as at fault for your wife. You will be lucky to have a shared liability with the third party. The issue of no MOT or bald tyres is between the TP and the police and won't  affect the liability in this case.

Even if he was speeding, if your wife leave enough gap to complete the manoeuvre, it won't have happened. Also, the person making the right turn stops not the other way round. So I don't understand the argument of nothing restricting his view to stop.

Mickey666

Any independent witnesses?

452

sheaoc said:

My partner was making a right turn on an A road and a on coming car had crashed in the rear left axle causing the the car to turn 120 degrees and the rear left wheel to come off the car.
She had almost completed her turn.
There was nothing restricting his view to stop but that would be debatable. For an axle to fail would require a high impact hit which makes me to believe he was speeding. I also took photos of his tyres they show lack of thread and can see the wire within the tyre i also ran an mot check and his car had no road tax.  

My partner has been badly injured and insurance is saying she is liable for she made right turn. I refuse to accept liability for he had hit the  rear left hand side of the vehicle. 

The damage done to my car is a write off due to the damage caused. 
Any legal advice would be greatly welcomed.

So she turned right across the path of an oncoming vehicle? If so it's her fault. 

shaun_from_Africa

sheaoc said:

For an axle to fail would require a high impact hit which makes me to believe he was speeding. 

Axles are not designed to take great loads from the side so a car hitting it at any sort of speed may well be enough to cause it to come off the vehicle. The axle will get a slight side loading when the car is turning but this would nothing compared to a ton+ of metal fitting it at 30/40/50 mph.

sheaoc said:

I refuse to accept liability for he had hit the  rear left hand side of the vehicle

Yes, he hit the rear left hand side of your car but only because your car was where it shouldn't have been at the time of the impact.

chrisw

Hitting the rear left really confirms she turned across in front of him. I would say 100% your wife's fault I'm afraid.

jbainbridge

From your description your partner turned across the path of an oncoming vehicle. 100% fault.

fred246

It was unlucky that your wife was turning right when a criminal was coming from the other direction. Are the police involved? Are they charging him for defective tyres and no vehicle tax? Was it a straight road? Obviously if you are turning right and Lewis Hamilton comes round a bend at top speed no-one could ever complete a turn. The criminal was probably speeding too but the problem is getting the evidence for that. If the police are involved and have investigated you might get that evidence otherwise it will be difficult. If people hadn't been speeding accidents like this would often be avoided but they can't be put down to speeding as nobody has that evidence. Often in events like this you have to accept that even though you did everything right in the eyes of the law you are deemed to be at fault.

facade

lopsyfa said:

So I don't understand the argument of nothing restricting his view to stop.

All drivers have a duty to avoid an accident . If you can see that you are going to hit someone, you are supposed to stop, or steer round them not just smash into then shouting "My right of way!!!!!"

So there is an argument that the failure of the other driver to stop/slow down when he could clearly see her turning contributed to the accident.

AdrianC

Another vote here for "her fault", except in seriously extenuating circumstances.

"Nothing restricting his view" also means that there was nothing restricting her view of him, doesn't it?

You say you think he must have been speeding... Was it an NSL A-road? So 60mph limit, assuming single carriageway? 27 metres per second. Call it as much as four seconds for her to move off and clear the carriageway - did she not see the car 100m away? Even if the other car was doing 80, that's only another 25m or so. She's meant to be able to read a numberplate at 20m... So she cannot in all seriousness say she did not see him. Unless she's admitting she didn't look?

Could he have avoided her? Possibly, possibly not. Perhaps he assumed she'd be out of the way before he got there, and realised too late that she was taking too long. That may split the liability - but as far as her insurance is concerned, she's still on the hook.

His vehicle's legality is irrelevant to your wife's role in the collision. Unless you're suggesting she saw him, realised his legal situation, and decided to deliberately turn across him to teach him a lesson because he shouldn't have been there...?

angrycrow

There are a couple of key case laws concerning contributory negligence against a speeding motorist who hits a car which turns right across their path.

Can't remember the case names off the top of my head but to sum up the two cases the excess speed needed to be reckless. In case one the motorcyclist was 10 or 20 over the limit and the judge ruled that whilst he should not have been speeding it would not have impacted the judgement of the turning driver, who should have waited for the motorcycle to pass before turning. No contributory negligence. 

The second case the motorcyclist was traveling at well over a 100 mph and had just come round a bend. His speed was so extreme he would not have been visible when the driver started to turn.

The question is if your wife saw the speeding motorist coming towards her why did she still turn right across his path.